Journalists often mock scientists who spend months proving the obvious. But sometimes, scientists come to conclusions that delight news editors because they confound expectations.

So it was when four researchers "proved" in 1995 that pedestrians breaking into a run to avoid getting as wet as walkers in the rain were wasting their effort. Complex mathematical formulas showed that over a set distance the amount of rain hitting the runner would be the same as the walker.

Two other scientists, with a little more common sense and caught in the rain during a hike, decided this must be bunk. They first redid the maths and concluded that there were some wrong assumptions behind the complex equations. But the killer blow to the original paper was a simple experiment. The two bought identical hats, sweatshirts and trousers and sets of plastic bags to go underneath this clothing to avoid any water escaping. One scientist walked 100 metres though heavy rain and the other ran. Weighing their clothing afterwards proved that the running man's clothes had absorbed 40% less rain than those of the walker.

In 1997 their rebuttal appeared in the Royal Meteorological Society journal, Weather. They suggested that fellow scientists should consider that there was still a role for simple observational checks, particularly if complex computer conclusions showed people typically reacted in a totally irrational way to common weather phenomena.